Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 5: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:58, 5 January 2018 editDavey2010 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,573 edits →List of headmasters of The Hill School: +my 2c← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:59, 5 January 2018 edit undoDavey2010 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,573 edits fucksake.,Tag: Undo Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. ] (]) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)		I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. ] (]) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

	*'''Endorse''' - This was an easy close, I believed the content at ] was encyclopedic which is why I merged it into the ] article (I will also add most school articles have "List of Headmasters" and as far as I'm aware there's never been an issue with this content, Anyway after my merging consensus at the AFD began to be to redirect ''because I already merged it'' ..., Having asking at AFD what the point of redirecting was I essentially got the answer of REDIRECTSARECHEAP", Consensus in this case was obvious and the nominator ''should've'' merged in the first place instead of going to AFD. –]<sup>]</sup> 23:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	\|-		\|-
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''		\| style="text-align:center;" \| ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''

Revision as of 23:59, 5 January 2018

< 2018 January 4 Deletion review archives: 2018 January 2018 January 6 >

5 January 2018

List of headmasters of The Hill School (closed)

List of headmasters of The Hill School – Reopen. Wow. You never close an AfD that you've participated in. Just doesn't happen. I'm rolling back the close and relisting this. And a big trout to Davey2010, who really should just stay away from WP:NAC. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of headmasters of The Hill School (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of headmasters of The Hill School – Reopen. Wow. You never close an AfD that you've participated in. Just doesn't happen. I'm rolling back the close and relisting this. And a big trout to Davey2010, who really should just stay away from WP:NAC. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Prapimporn Karnchanda (closed)

Prapimporn Karnchanda – Speedy restore as contested PROD – consider it contested by me personally if it helps. I've deleted the AFD page that the article creator opened in a misguided attempt to protest the deletion as a technical deletion (CSD:G6 "pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace") and speedy closed the MFD of the said AFD. Anyone wishing to file a proper AFD for the article is not precluded from doing so. – Stifle (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Prapimporn Karnchanda (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Miniapolis’s deletion isn't valid (no existing AfD debate), but whether it's being actively used or not is irrelevant as far as our notability requirements are concerned. My objections are here: 1) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda; 2) Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda. Janggun Dungan (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC) It was an expired prod for a non-notable subject. The OP apparently doesn't know the difference between a proposed deletion and an AfD discussion, because they then opened an AfD on their own article (the expired, uncontested prod I'd already deleted) which I listed at MfD because I'm involved. The OP has baselessly accused me of vandalism and paid editing. I don't really care if the page is userfied or whatever, but don't think we should be bullied into ignoring WP:NACTOR to do so. Miniapolis 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC) IAR Endorse- Ordinarily I'd call this a clear case of contesting a PRODded article. But I'm not convinced rewarding personal attacks and unfounded accusations is appropriate here. Of course, any other editor in good standing could contest it as well and I'd then have no objection about restoring it. It's likely that this article was a hopeless case though. Reyk _YO! 06:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Prapimporn Karnchanda – Speedy restore as contested PROD – consider it contested by me personally if it helps. I've deleted the AFD page that the article creator opened in a misguided attempt to protest the deletion as a technical deletion (CSD:G6 "pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace") and speedy closed the MFD of the said AFD. Anyone wishing to file a proper AFD for the article is not precluded from doing so. – Stifle (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Miniapolis’s deletion isn't valid (no existing AfD debate), but whether it's being actively used or not is irrelevant as far as our notability requirements are concerned. My objections are here: 1) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda; 2) Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda. Janggun Dungan (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It was an expired prod for a non-notable subject. The OP apparently doesn't know the difference between a proposed deletion and an AfD discussion, because they then opened an AfD on their own article (the expired, uncontested prod I'd already deleted) which I listed at MfD because I'm involved. The OP has baselessly accused me of vandalism and paid editing. I don't really care if the page is userfied or whatever, but don't think we should be bullied into ignoring WP:NACTOR to do so. Miniapolis 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

IAR Endorse- Ordinarily I'd call this a clear case of contesting a PRODded article. But I'm not convinced rewarding personal attacks and unfounded accusations is appropriate here. Of course, any other editor in good standing could contest it as well and I'd then have no objection about restoring it. It's likely that this article was a hopeless case though. Reyk _YO! 06:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Raegan Revord

Page deleted outside the AfD process. Last time I saw the page, it seemed a legitimate page for a notable child actress. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that this was done outside of AfD. It was deleted per WP:G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). As far as I can see, this was done correctly. If some other legitimate user (you, for example) wants to write a new article about this subject, they're free to do so, but I don't see any way the deleted text is going to be restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)